Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/99 Percent Declaration

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. causa sui (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

99 Percent Declaration[edit]

AfDs for this article:
99 Percent Declaration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic is not indepent of Occupy Wall Street and does not independently meet WP:GNG. Two users, including myself, set it up as a redirect and article creator without consensus, put the text back. Article appears to have been WP:POINT created in order to get around consensus regarding the inclusion of these sources on Occupy Wall Street. LauraHale (talk) 02:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleting this page would be bias. Keep it. Noahk11 (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Occupy Wall Street. Pointy behavior at best, a POV fork at worst. None of the secondary sources do anything more than mention the phrase "99 Percent Declaration." The article does not satisfy WP:GNG by itself. Trusilver 03:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean by "do anything more than"? Dualus (talk) 03:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because per both WP:GNG and the specific notability criteria at WP:WEB, the document has been the subject of these non-trivial published reliable WP:SECONDARY sources independent of the site itself:
  1. Walsh, J. (October 20, 2011) "Do we know what OWS wants yet?" Salon
  2. Kennedy, A.L. (October 22, 2011) "Protesters Plan to Occupy Williamsburg" Williamsburg Yorktown Daily
  3. Duda, C. (October 19, 2011) "Occupy Wall Street Protesters Call for National General Assembly, Put Forward Possible Demands" Juvenile Justice Information Exchange
  4. Lopez, L. (October 19, 2011) "Finally! The Protesters Have Drafted A Set Of Demands For The Jobs Crisis" Business Insider
  5. Haack, D. (October 24, 2011) "How the Occupy movement won me over" The Guardian
Moreover, the nominator refuses to respond to questions on Talk:99 Percent Declaration and her talk page[1][2] and I believe she has been canvassing people with whom her only interactions have not been independent of her interactions with me[3]. Dualus (talk) 03:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first and second source doesn't give any information other than the phrase "99 Percent Declaration". The third source says straight out that the Occupy Wall Street movement hasn't officially adopted any specific demands yet and specifically states: "The list online is cleared marked as a “suggested list of grievances” and not as the platform for the movement that claims to represent “99 percent” of the country. The final list, to be voted on by the National General Assembly, may or may not include 20 proposed reforms." Therefore, the article's first line that suggests this "declaration" is connected to the Occupy movement is patently false. The fourth and fifth sources make no mention of the 99 Percent Declaration at all. Trusilver 03:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dualus, I already pointed out to you that Laura's message on my talk page was a direct response to my own comment at her talk page warning her about the futility of trying to reason with you. Pretty obviously not canvassing IMO. You might want to retract the accusation. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also... please limit yourself to discussing the merits of the article's notability rather than making ad homenium attacks against the nominator. Trusilver 03:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first source says:
"There’s a “99 percent declaration” that calls for a national general assembly of representatives from all 435 congressional districts to gather on July 4, 2012, to assemble a list of grievances and solutions that isn’t official. But the draft list overlaps in some ways with Reich’s proposal: public works programs, tax hikes, debt forgiveness and lots of muscular ways to get money out of politics. An OWS demands working group proposed a “New New Deal,” with public works programs, tax hikes and defense cuts similar to what Reich is proposing."
That is clearly more information than the phrase. The second source says:
"organizers have been trying to get participants to vote on a list of grievances, and a “99 percent Declaration” has indicated an intention to convene on July 4, 2012 to form a National General Assembly tasked with creating a nonpartisan independent political party."
That is also clearly more information than the phrase alone. As for the third sources, did you notice the section heading in 99 Percent Declaration#Suggested grievances? The other sources also describe the same document. If you can not verify that by their content, that doesn't matter, because the threshold of substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources is met. Dualus (talk) 03:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per the nom's concern about POV forks and POINTY behavior. If, after this, there are continuing issues with people recreating the page then it can be protected if necessary. Shadowjams (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which sources do you believe involve POINTY behavior? Dualus (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe you misunderstand WP:POINT. It's a reference to on wiki actions used to create a point. It appears there was discussion about this, and there was disagreement with the consensus so they went ahead anyway. I'm not involved in the original discussion so I have no idea the intricacies, but what the nom says checks out. Shadowjams (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The nominator wrote, "Article appears to have been WP:POINT created in order to get around consensus regarding the inclusion of these sources on Occupy Wall Street." Are you saying that you have verified that statement, and it, "checks out," but you don't know which sources lacked consensus to include? Even if there was not consensus, which can change, to include such sources in Occupy Wall Street, why would that mean that there is no consensus to include such sources in 99 Percent Declaration? Dualus (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First of all, the general Occupy Wall Street is beyond unwieldy. Instead of larding more onto one article, it needs to be broken up into various subjects with lead paragraphs explaining the generalities of the subject and a link. This is a core element, the closest thing to a unified platform for the Occupy movement. While it emanated from the first of such protest locations, its the closest document any have to offer the media's request for an agenda for the otherwise poorly defined protests. In WP terms, it has received significant coverage. Here's more sources: [4], which has dozens of mirrors. [5]. A side note; under the burden of consensus, its quite an achievement for the General Assembly to come up with anything resembling a unified statement. That in itself makes it significant. Trackinfo (talk) 03:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the additional sources. I think the current.com video will make a good external link. Dualus (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trackinfo, you are not correct if you believe that this document represents anything that has come from the General Assembly. It was released prior to even bringing it up to the GA, apparently to make a big news splash, which it did. Gandydancer (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Under WP:GNG whether the article is a ratified document passed by the General Assembly or if there is a hoax in play that is misrepresenting it as such, the fact is it has received sufficient coverage. If there is more "drama" at play, that is content that should be sourced and included in the article rather than deleting information and pushing the subject under the rug. I suggest removing it because it is not was it purports to be is wikipedia editors deciding by themselves what is newsworthy and what is not. We are an encyclopedia, we try to accurately consolidate what the press has reported. Trackinfo (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep I have been convinced by the arguments of others that this is notable enough for inclusion as long as all Copy right violations are kept out and the POV pushing is left out. The article can be expanded in an accurate way. Should it not stay on this path, it can simply be renominated or speedy deleted per MOS.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia:Activist POV pushing, non notable fringe document being given undue weight to a movement that has distanced itself from the authors and the document. BLP issues concerning Larwrence Lessig. Possible conflict of interest in creating the article. User may be involved in organizing a real world activity through Wikipedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What real world activity to you think I am trying to organize? And why do you say BLP issues for Lawrence Lessig? Dualus (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment- Thank you for asking these two specific questions.
      • First, you are using Wikipedia to organize your personal Point of View that the document has weight and notability, where an ongoing dispute, brought up by yourself in a number of Noticeboard locations has centered on these subjects, which are clear Wikipedia:Activist. In doing so you are actively partaking in trying to effect a real world event through your edits and the creation of this article.
      • Second [6] Activists treat the BLPs of their ideological adversaries as dumping grounds for almost any kind of pejorative or impeaching information they can find. It doesn't really matter how tenuous the sources are. They could be posts from an advocacy blog hosted by a political lobbying organization, a professor's self-published slide show, or the subject's signature on some controversial petition, it's all good to go as far as they are concerned. Any attempt to remove or qualify some of the negative information or balance out the BLP in question, even a little, is met with cries of "whitewash!" and WP:NOTCENSORED by the activists on each other's talk pages and a quick call to action.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Additional reasoning to delete include the copyright violations of lifting the text directly from the website the document is found. The section "Constituional amendment" [7] is simple copy paste from the Occupy Wall Street article that was deleted as undue weight to the subject...Lessig Himself. It is also added in similar fasion, if not exactly on the living person's page, Lawrence Lessig.[8].--Amadscientist (talk) 06:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You say I am using Wikipedia to organize my "personal Point of View that the document has weight and notability" -- how is that a "real world activity"? I am just an editor trying to improve the encyclopedia. The document is notable per the notability criteria, and it's not POV pushing to try to get an article about it written well. Which specific statements in Lessig's article do you think raise BLP concerns? I'm not sure you understand what editors generally mean by BLP concerns. Have you read WP:BLP? As for the copyvio concerns, it's excerpted with considerable elision and thus is usable under the fair use doctrine because the article is about a primary source. Dualus (talk) 06:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair use doctrine is not Wikipedia policy and you have to do more than use the text from the document as copy paste to create an article. Does not fall under fair use for Wikipedia. You are attempting to "prop up" information to give undue weight to Lessig for this document. Please explain why he is even in this artcile you have created if not to push the point of view that you hold. Why not mention the author...David Haack, instead, who is credited in numerous sources as having written this document as far back as August. Could it be that he is not a notable figure? Could it be that this was only presented at some point and then turned down by the governing body of OWS? It could and probably is the reason. You are pushing an article to effect the events of the movement...not record or document them.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            Are you saying that I am pushing a point of view to be able to author the document I'm trying to document? That's preposterous. If I were authoring that document it would mention instant runoff voting as part of electoral college reform. Also I would find some source like [9] for the Republican perspective on the part about mortgage risk per WP:NPOV. Dualus (talk) 08:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • That information supports the idea that this is a WP:POVFORK, and should be deleted as failing to meet WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 07:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, it does not. I give equal weight to anyone with a pending constitutional amendment similar to the one called for in the Declaration. A POVFORK is a different article about the same subject from a different point of view, so there would have to be another article on the Declaration but this is the only one. Dualus (talk) 07:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, it does so! The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article; in some cases, editors have even converted existing redirects into content forks. However, a new article can be a POV fork even if its title is not a synonym of an existing article's title. If one has tried to include one's personal theory that heavier-than-air flight is impossible in an existing article about aviation, but the consensus of editors has rejected it as patent nonsense, that does not justify creating an article named "Unanswered questions about heavier-than-air flight" to expound the rejected personal theory.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get "most blatant"? Dualus (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep We have had endless problems with this editor at the OWS article. He starts thread after thread forcing editors to engage and then when everyone is worn down he accuses them of not answering his posts. Eventually, when he doesn't get his way, he goes to other articles such as the Occupy movement article, or in this case starts a new article, to start the process all over again. We are currently having a discussion at the OWS article about whether or not this information should even be included in that article. Most of his references are not acceptable to use as sources. Gandydancer (talk) 09:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A lot has transpired since I made my Delete vote and I have now changed it to Keep. I will explain my rationale when I have time. Gandydancer (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry you have so many problems with me as a contributor. Do you have any problems with the content of the article you want to delete? Dualus (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just barely glanced over the talk page for Occupy Wall Street and I already see that this individual is exhibiting a very frustrating case of "I didn't hear that!" It's helpful to keep the concept stored away in your head somewhere that when consensus is siding against you, that "just maybe" they are right and you aren't. That means accepting the fact and moving on rather than creating a new article that contains the information that everyone else said "no" to. Trusilver 10:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not content to describe fifty word paragraphs as no more information than a three word phrase, you now seek to pretend that there was not an approximately equal balance of editors in favor of and opposed to the disputed sources? Simply because I'm not trying to pretend my opinion is in a vast majority whenever it seems to be in a plurality? The talk page archives have plenty of support for my position. There was no consensus either way. That doesn't mean consensus was ever entirely against me. I've responded to specific problems when they have been pointed out by finding more sources or changing the wording to address the problem. Do you have any specific problems with the content of the article? Dualus (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question that I would like answered, I still can't recall a single editor who supported your proposed text (and actual insertions by force), and I can't recall a single editor who sided with you in any dispute whatsoever regarding the appropriateness of a source. You've repeatedly claimed there wasn't a consensus against your edits, and in this thread you are now claiming there was "approximately an equal balance of editors" on both sides of an issue, but I've pressed you repeatedly to identify a single editor who supported your proposals and you have refused each time. And this is to say nothing of the fact that the discussions would have gone very differently had others lent you any support, or the fact that consensus is not a vote. Please demonstrate that there were actually other editors supporting your arguments or stop making that claim.
I think it's also worthwhile to note that after you created seven separate Talkpage sections about the unsubstantiated claims about Lessig you wanted to include, and after the claims were rejected at each, you also started no fewer than four noticeboard discussions, each of which saw editors echoing the same concerns we had previously raised, and which you never addressed.
I think it's also worthwhile to note that you have inserted the virtually same disputed/rejected material in three separate articles besides this one: the Occupy movement article, the Lawrence Lessig article, and the Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution article. I can't imagine a clearer case of trying to ignore and circumvent consensus. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Am I allowed to count the people voting to keep on this page? Thank you for pointing out the other articles where the material remained undisturbed for days if not weeks. Dualus (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, because that would be another lie. You have now repeatedly claimed that prior discussions at OWS involved other editors supporting your OR on Lessig and the 99 % Declaration, and you even claim there was "approximately an equal balance of editors" on one issue. I am calling those claims out as a lie intended to dishonestly influence the outcome of subsequent discussions, just as you lied about the George Will discussion to make other editors think there was consensus for your edit which was in fact flatly rejected. Note: this is a serious charge and it's possible for me to be blocked just for making it. Please either substantiate your claim with diffs showing that you were only one of multiple editors arguing for the same material at OWS talk, or cease making the false claim. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Keep (per Amadscientist's change from delete to keep, and my discussion with Dualus) Amadscientist is spot-on correct, and it seems Wikipedia is being sorta hijacked by elements within OWS to win more weight for something which isn't independently notable. This is an OWS power struggle which has sadly spread to Wikipedia--whatever side we take will affect the power grab being attempted by those who are abusing Wikipedia for personal benefit off wiki and it saddens me because the completely "nothing at stake" editors like Amadscientist and others are getting out-muscled by the activists. The 99percent declaration is being given/attempted way too much coverage relative to the overall OWS coverage which Wikipedia has in its various OWS articles. The 99% declaration deserves about a paragraph or two inside either the "movement" article or main ows article, if even that much. 완젬스 (talk) 12:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GandyDancer is right also about how this editor is wearing the rest of us down, almost like a reductio ad naseum at every turn. It's a marathon for those who have a life other than Wikipedia, because the non-stop stuff which keeps piling up slows everyone else down. It's tough staying current, and it's mostly a small handful of editors who drum up non-stop red tape (such as this) which must be handled on a day to day basis, before work can freshly begin on the article again. In a way, this non-stop activity of this one editor is making everyone feel the pinch, especially if this article isn't deleted, then it's more talk pages for us to have lengthy discussions on about WP:UNDUE weight all over again. 완젬스 (talk) 12:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any specific objections, such as a particular passage you think lacked consensus to include, or a statement not sufficiently supported by a source? Or a deficient source? I am interested in improving the content, and I am sorry you don't like me as a contributor. What is your objection to the statement in your link? Dualus (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, you're fine. I've come around to you since you're talking & answering stuff for us. I'll delve into answering your questions here tomorrow evening, and erase this sentence. 완젬스 (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you intend to update your !vote? Dualus (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed to keep. Thanks for our 2 chats, 완젬스 (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources provided in the article seem to say that there are many people and factions making demands. Of course this is a major, or perhaps the major, aspect of any protest movement. It should be covered in the article on the movement. No indication that this one document is what's notable. Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Occupy Wall Street Declaration. Reliable sources: [10], [11], [12], and more. Merging to the already sufficiently comprehensive Occupy Wall Street article wouldn't be functional. Redirection to the Occupy Wall Street article is the same as deletion. It's hasty to delete this article while events continue to occur. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment – See also WP:SPINOFF, "Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Wikipedia: Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary." et al. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that also says: [T]he moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Clean-up and Improve. The various points are well expressed and not otherwise found. A problematic Wikipedian should be warned & censored if necessary, but that's an issue independent of content. I'm referencing this page for Occupy Boston. RKerver
Comment I see copy paste...no expression in that.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree that it needs a lot of work but I think the topic meets GNG. I also think that a rename is in order to maybe Occupy Wall Street Declaration or something else. --Kumioko (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Dualus (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Clean-up and Improve. I did a quick Google News search and there seems to be enough reliable secondary sources. Many of the current references, however, do not appear to be suitable. I'd be happy to help in the clean up.--Nowa (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you're willing to do clean up, can you start now? I'm not certain what can be rescued and additional problems appear to be added to the article on a consistent basis at the moment.--LauraHale (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Anyone else interested? We can meet on the talk page of the article.--Nowa (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there are serious WP:OWN issues with this article to the point where you won't be able to actually improve the article to bring it into compliance with Wikipedia guidelines like WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:GNG, WP:MOS. Consensus on Talk:Occupy Wall Street indicates that most of the content and source related to the actual information appearing in it is not acceptable. I'd like to see how these issues would be resolved in practical sense because I can't see how you can keep unless those issues are addressed. --LauraHale (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. Perhaps I can be of most use as a moderator. Let's see how it goes on the article talk page.--Nowa (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete The page is too unstable for me to support a keep.--Nowa (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"...plans are found in a document posted online by an “Occupy Wall Street” working group, titled “The 99 Percent Declaration.” The document proposes a National General Assembly to be held in Philadelphia starting on July 4th, 2012 and running through next October.

The proposal says the Assembly would operate similarly to the original “Committees of Correspondence” — the Founding Fathers who met in Philadelphia prior to what the group refers to as “the first American Revolution.” It was not immediately clear if such a gathering will actually take place, but city officials are aware of the proposal and Mayor Nutter says he wants to talk about it with the organizers.

“I understand national Occupy would want to be in Philadelphia — this is birthplace of freedom, liberty, and democracy for the United States of America — so I look forward to a conversation,” Nutter told KYW Newsradio. “We need to better understand what it is they want to do, where and what it’s all about. But I welcome the discussion.” Nutter says he would like to maintain the same open dialogue with the national organizers as he has with the local group now encamped on Dilworth Plaza."

Maybe someone is sending reporters to Dilworth Plaza. Dualus (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This short article is still long enough that it would make the already very long OWS article too big; better to have spin-offs such as this than a too large article that people have trouble getting around. Besides, there are more than an adequate number of sources about this specific part of the OWS protest to support a separate article, and notability requirements are more than satisfied. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nom appears to be trying to strip the article down to nothing in order to insure its deletion. I suggest she withdraw from editing the article as her POV seems clear. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Diff. So have other editors. Dualus (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable and distinct from Occupy Wall Street.Greg Bard (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It appears this is no longer a part of OWS or the New York City General Assembly. The official site makes that clear:

Per Wikipedia MOS [13] Official links can be used as a source to verify a self-published statement in the article text. This link [14] shows that the NYC GA states:

"In the interest of full transparency and openness, it is time to share with you, dear reader, a story about a group, a group that is no more. Yes, that’s right. I am referring to the “99Declaration” group."

"[T]here were internal disputes within the 99Declaration group and one of the admins decided to take things into their own hands and delete the group. Any group admin has the power to delete their own group at any moment. This story gets especially intriguing, though, when the other group admin decided to blame the movement, which he knew very well was not at fault. Let this post clear the air and set the record straight."

It is as legitimate a source as using the document itself as the FIRST reference in the article that is now reduced to two small paragraphs, after all copyright violations have been removed. Frankly it should have been speedy deleted and not nominated, but here we are and the article still makes claims that, while referenced, (even if badly and stretching things quite a bit) are no longer factual. They are not a part of the OWS movement and have left the New York General Assembly. This means it is a document without a cause. It can be mentioned that the declaration started out at OWS NYCGA, but right now it doesn't say anything about the fact that they are no longer associated with OWS and the NYC GA--Amadscientist (talk) 08:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete then redirect - there is no significant coverage in RS about this document.  Chzz  ►  11:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These are the mentions of significance on WP:WEB which is the specific notability standard for inclusion:
"Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples.
"When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education...."
What is your standard of significance? Dualus (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: Let's not make Wikipedia a platform to spread ideologies, this article and blatant spam are pretty much the same. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The initial proposal is pique at not gaining consensus to merge this back. The merge may be reasonable, although having the Declaration discussed only in an article on the group that disowned it is counterintuitive; but AfD is not the road to that. The sources include the New York Times, the Guardian, Salon, and the group opposed to the declaration; these are not the sources of a puff piece. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is deleted, please place in my user space. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. If it is deleted, please place it in the article incubator. Dualus (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Satisfies GNG, capable of lengthy treatment as a standalone article, and of significant historical importance. If WP can have articles for every single episode of every Star Trek related series, and every character therein, then it should accommodate serious and highly significant content like this, or we may as well pack our bags and go home. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Dualus (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Dualus (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Dualus (talk) Dualus (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Dualus (talk) Dualus (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Rename it to make it sound like it has an official relationship with the movement that appears to have rejected any relationship? Sounds misleading and very POV-pushy. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Position of the Founder of the #OWS Working Group on the 99% Declaration.

My name is Michael Pollok and I am the person who wrote the first drafts of the 99% Declaration now found at www.the99declaration.org. Most of what is in this article is false. I am a criminal defense attorney who became involved in #OWS when I began representing a number of students who were arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge. After meeting with these students, giving a talk at their college and discussing what issues mattered to them, I wrote the 99% Declaration.

On October 15, 2011 I appeared before the New York City General Assembly and addressed the General Assembly for over five minutes. During that time, I described the formation of the Working Group on the 99% Declaration and our purpose which is to organize an election of 870 delegates to a National General Assembly to draft a petition for a redress of grievances. This petition shall be served on all three branches of the United States government. I received a warm reception and held a two-hour meeting following the General Assembly. Interestingly, all of the speakers before the NYCGA on October 15, 2011 appear in the minutes but my five minute statement does not. appear. My ENTIRE appearance and all mentions of me and our Working Group were excised from the minutes by the facilitators because one or more of them disagreed with our point of view.

I wish to emphasize that carefully followed all of the procedures to start an #OWS Working Group and appeared before the General Assembly on October 15, 2011 at 7:45pm to announce the formation of the Working Group and its first meeting in Liberty Park that night.

Since that announcement to the General Assembly, the working group has moved to Facebook http://www.facebook.com/www.the99declaration.org and currently has over 2300 members. The 99% Declaration page has had more than 173,000 hits since October 18th when it went viral. The 99% declaration has been edited several times by using polls on the Facebook page and a yahoo site so anyone can propose edits and substantive changes.

From the inception of the NYCGA webpage. In fact, we were one of the first groups to appear on the new NYCGA website. Our group on that page was not set up by me or anyone else connected to the 99% Declaration. Instead it was started by Drew of the Internet Working Group and the admins "Stan Ford" and Brad l/n/u were the admins. I never had any admin control over that group so these statements in this article are false. I did criticize the NYCGA because this working group was taken down unilaterally by "Stan Ford" and we never had any admin control of that group.

I have requested assistance form the #OWS mediation group to have the 99% Declaration Working Group restored to the NYCGA official site but my requests have been ignored. The NYCGA operates like the very oligarchies they claim to challenge. I have suggested that I be the co-admin of the group with a member of the internet working group. In sum, most of the information in this article is false. -Michael Pollok, Esq. 11-3-11, 9:38 p.m. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The99declaration (talk • contribs) 01:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Michael, I'm copying this comment to Talk:99 Percent Declaration#Comment from Michael Pollok -- please feel free to join in with the discussion on that page. Dualus (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, besides that we don't know that you are who you claim you are, what does this have to do with the discussion at hand? Are you simply saying "The article is wrong"? So all those sources are wrong? But what does that have to do with deletion? Sorry, mr. Esq., but this is odd. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like mr Esq. is on quite the power trip. He should run for president. Gandydancer (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it bares stating to the author of the "spam" text something he may not be aware of as a new Wikipedia user. You just released that entire statement as CC Attribution 3.0 Unported. Meaning, anyone may now use this text by simply attributing the editor/Wikipedia who placed it here, Please be sure you understand the following:

Information for text contributors to Wikimedia projects

To grow the commons of free knowledge and free culture, all users contributing to Wikimedia projects are required to grant broad permissions to the general public to re-distribute and re-use their contributions freely, as long as the use is attributed and the same freedom to re-use and re-distribute applies to any derivative works. Therefore, for any text you hold the copyright to, by submitting it, you agree to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. For compatibility reasons, you are also required to license it under the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). Re-users can choose the license(s) they wish to comply with. Please note that these licenses do allow commercial uses of your contributions, as long as such uses are compliant with the terms.

As an author, you agree to be attributed in any of the following fashions: a) through a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the article or articles you contributed to, b) through a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) through a list of all authors. (Any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions.) --Amadscientist (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have a WP:COI and am refraining from any further edits to OWS pages and the page under discussion. (When I edited the OWS page, I was a detached observer. I have since become a partisan and have no desire to become an WP:Activist) Further, and to be crystal clear, this is not a !vote.
    Some other editors, who do not seem to have any WP:COI, appear to have offered comments and "cast" !votes. Some of these contbutors seem unconnected to the edit wars at the OWS and 99% pages. Other contributions seem to be connected to the continuing, disruptive edit wars at the OWS and 99% pages.
    I'm hoping the closing admin will discount the contributions to this AfD page of anyone with a declared COI.
    I also hope the closing admin will take an opportunity to remind established editors that:
  • focus should be on the edits, not the editor,
  • talk pages and AfD's are subject to WP:BLP, and
  • because dead men don't type, it can apply to derogation of fellow editors as well as named persons. David in DC (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seems clear that this is not directly associated with OWS, and has been fairly definitely rejected by them. It doesn't seem to have sourcing indicating that it's gaining any sort of traction.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an interesting situation - merger to OWS would be logical if and only if there were a clear connection thereto - lacking such, "merge" fails." What we are left with is "Is this notable?" and, at this point in time, this "declaration" appears notable per RS coverage. Does it violate any WP policies? Again - no - if it violated BLP etc. I would absolutely !vote to delete. When the !votes based on "I don't like the editor involved" or "it should be merged (to a page where it actually does not appear to fit in), or based on WP:ACTIVIST which is an essay and has zero weight in a deletion discussion are deprecated by the closer, I suspect the consensus is to keep. Wikipedia does not delete articles based on dislike of any editor. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for a completely sensible rationale. I hope anyone interested in reading what a perfect vote sounds like, it is finally here. 완젬스 (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is sufficient specific notability in the Declaration to make it separately notable, as shown by the sources. FWIW, I certainly have a very strong feeling on the subject but I have not been editing these articles. Anyway, I would regard the Declaration as equally notable if I had the opposite view of the underlying social and economic issues. This AfD should not be treated as if it weres a referendum on them. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, independently notable and noteworthy, indeed, it has received significant secondary source coverage from multiple WP:RS sources. — Cirt (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep. Having gone through the sources, I'm satisfied that WP:GNG is met, and that it's unclear at best if the "Declaration" has a direct relation to the "Occupy" movement. Given time, the article should become more stable and a re-assessment can be made whether the article is warranted as a fork or should be merged, but it regardless meets the criterion for notability. — CharlieEchoTango — 02:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for sufficient specific notability. (PS I do appreciate the discussion here, many dark points seem to be a bit clearer now) --NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' : This entire article is being promoted by some user Dualus, he obviously has an agenda. I would like other editors to keep a close eye on this. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this article is biased and will probably never be able to become neutral. Also, the references are poorly formatted, with several links simply posted after the text. Of those links that are posted, one of those links is to another article on Wikipedia and another is for a Facebook page, which is wrong. I also find this sentence un-encyclopedic: "The 99% Declaration has been edited hundreds of times using online polls and taking suggestions from people who email their main email at: mailto:the99declaration@gmail.org". I also find it very awkward having a section called Background and another section called True Background. Finally, I must agree with the nominator, the article can either be deleted or easily merged into Occupy Wall Street or We are the 99%.--12george1 (talk) 03:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to look again. All of your comments are about vandalism that had just been added and that I reverted before you even made this vote. SilverserenC 03:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a little better then what I originally saw. However, the article is small enough to be merged into Occupy Wall Street or We are the 99%.--12george1 (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I put in a little more time on it and edited it down to the most neutral, accurate MOS compliant version I could come up with at the time. This is the version I came up with. [15] --Amadscientist (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove the WP:SUMMARY? You and the nominator have both blanked that section while the nomination for deletion was ongoing. Dualus (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When two people set the article as a redirect and asked for a consensus decision before recreating the article, why did you restore the article? Why did you ignore consensus for a redirect? --LauraHale (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You requested the SUMMARY section in your first edit to the article. Dualus (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two people is not a consensus. And, secondly, it is the making it a redirect that requires a consensus, not the undoing of such. SilverserenC 00:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is obviously a work of a few editors trying to push this article, I really hope it gets deleted. Is not neutral, it doesn't even seem notable --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fairly large amount of veteran editors voting Keep in this discussion would disagree with you. SilverserenC 19:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/99_Percent_Declaration&oldid=1089640504"